Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hate-crime = Thought crime?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 271 of 376 (540142)
12-22-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2009 9:01 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
What does it have to devalue one life in order to lift another one up? Invariably that is what is happening, which is not in accordance with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
You are falsely applying a negative to the standard victim.
If you have a dime, it is worth $.10.
If I have a different dime from 1802, it's word $15.00
That doesn't mean that I have devalued your dime. Your dime is still just as good as it was when it was made. It does, however, mean that certain circumstances my dime is treated differently than your dime. While in other circumstances (a gumball machine) they are completely the same.
That's life.
If it means that someone will never be eligible for parole, then I don't see it being ineffectual.
The point is, if you've committed two murders and you know you are going to get caught within a week, there is literally no reason for you not to go on a spree and commit a few thousand more murders since the WORST that can happen is that you'll be serving sentences you can't survive long enough to handle.
Agreed, which is why it needs to be reviewed in court and not federally mandated which so easily can be manipulated.
If it's not federally mandated then we'll have two sets of standards. We'll have the North were it is illegal to kill black men and we'll have the South were defendants are rewarded for doing it.
That clearly being the case, what this really is about is showing solidarity to a community who has received past injustices -- so that society is now sure to pay for the past transgressions of our forefathers. It's an attempt to make political correctness a law by proxy, which completely undermines the premise of free speech.
Here is the problem. You are assuming that everything is equal now. That a black man murdered in Georgia gets the same justice as a (let's pretend you have them) a black man murdered in New Hampshire.
That's not the case.
This is not about trying to pay back previous crimes. This is about trying to slow or stop criminals who act out against specific groups which are frequently targeted and rarely get justice.
I want exactly what you want, which is for all people regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc to be safe from harm. But they are already protected.
You and I both know that they aren't.
In the deep South if a white woman shoots a black man on a street at night and claims she was afraid he was going to rape her, she has a much less chance of being arrested and prosecuted than if those races were reversed.
That means that there ALREADY is a double standard. Turning a blind eye to that and saying that "everything is already equal" is the sort of thing that can only happen when you are on the "more equal" side of the fence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 9:01 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 272 of 376 (540145)
12-22-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
It is still the same, as you're describing motive. The intent is to commit arson, the motive is the reason why they want to do it. So you are right back to where we left off.
No, the intent is to burn down the house _of an Irish person_.
There motive could be to kill all Irish people, to terrorize Irish people, to get Irish people out the neighborhood, whatever.
You can't keep truncating intent.
Charles Whitman (Texas Clock tower) had the intent to commit murder and cause terror. He did not specifically go up to the top of the tower with a particularly person or group of people in mind. He took targets of opportunity.
His intent is murder. His motive is (probably) to become famous.
A KKK member who climbs to a church steeple and shots 6 black men with the exact same rifle has a different intent. His intent is to MURDER BLACK PEOPLE.
His motive is racial supremacy.
Intent is not limited to what the action will be.
If I intent to murder my wife with the motive of collecting insurance money my intent is murder _my wife_. My motive is money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 11:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 273 of 376 (540147)
12-22-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Nuggin
12-22-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Nuggin writes:
The hate crime legislation is merely adding an additional element onto the crime for which the person can be prosecuted.
That's right, that element is the punishment of the thought process that led to the crime being committed. A.k.a The Motive.
Nuggin writes:
And, before you pipe in that his intention is not a crime....
Why woud I do that?
Nuggin writes:
...let me remind you the merely planning a murder is in and of itself a prosecutable crime.
Ok. So?
What is your point again?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 12:16 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 2:49 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 274 of 376 (540149)
12-22-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Straggler
12-22-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Straggler writes:
What? So the "intent to defraud" that is specified in the law is actually "motive"? Not "intent"? Have you lost the ability to read?
The Intent here isn't referring to the Act in question. The Act is "committing arson." The Intent behind the Act is determined by the presence of determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason. So if he committed arson purposefully then that was his Intent. If he started a fire accidentally then he was lacking Intent (i.e. mens rea).
The Motive for this Act is the why a person acted that way. The answer in this case is: To Defraud the Insurance Company.
Which of the above are you having difficulty with?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2009 12:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2009 2:00 AM Legend has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 275 of 376 (540166)
12-22-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Legend
12-22-2009 1:24 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
That's right, that element is the punishment of the thought process that led to the crime being committed. A.k.a The Motive.
And we do that in cases of caused death. We have multiple classifications from no-motive manslaughter to 1st degree murder with special circumstances.
This legislation makes it so that we don't have to create 5 different levels of graffiti and 5 different levels of assault and 5 different levels of harassment and 5 different levels of arson, etc etc etc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 1:24 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 3:53 PM Nuggin has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 276 of 376 (540177)
12-22-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2009 9:01 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Hyroglyphics opines:
That clearly being the case, what this really is about is showing solidarity to a community who has received past injustices -- so that society is now sure to pay for the past transgressions of our forefathers. It's an attempt to make political correctness a law by proxy, which completely undermines the premise of free speech.
Dude, it has already been thrown out with the bath water. Free speech is only okay if the ruling authorities do not mind. We are already living in a police state of sorts in the US. If you get arrested for disturbing the peace by carrying huge Communist signs and you have the right lawyer connections, you walk free. The authorities just want to see you play ball - cough up the legal dough.
As for making amends for the crimes of generations past, consider this colossally stupid analogy: a truck driver intent on murdering a pregnant woman eventually catches up to her on the highway and, after a long terrorizing chase, aided by the huge trailer he's hauling, forces her off the road into a canyon river. She is lucky and lives, but is still stuck down in the river. Now the police arrive & arrest the man. He gets handcuffed and rode off to custody. Shouldnt we also hope that they take the woman out of the river? At least before she delivers her child? The various minority groups are still, for the most part, stuck down in the river - and some would want to leave them there down on their own. Not only that, there are still more being driven off the road into that river, if they didnt have the misfortune of being born there. Now look: there's a white straight short-haired untattoed unpierced middle-aged christian upper middle class suit & tie male in the river. Notice how quickly he is rescued on average. Notice how rarely he is even driven off the road. Shouldnt we be trying to get everyone out of the river?
No one can reasonably argue that there are not good and noble intentions behind the law. I want exactly what you want, which is for all people regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc to be safe from harm. But they are already protected.
No! they are not protected. That is the point! Various states with their legions of police and state officials and judiciary have not shown responsible action over the crimes stratified over those distinctions you mention. There are lots of well-entrenched despicable official, sanctioned behaviors still extant across this sad country. And they will continue and continue.
That is why a FEDERAL LAW is unfortunately needed here. This gives the power of the feds to come in and prosecute when the state fails to do so. And believe me, in the 60's (only 50 years ago, less than your average 1st degree murder sentence) those states in the south were being criminal. The Feds have to be the Parent to the disobedient Child. Imagine you telling your child to close the door and he laughs and runs off and eventually you get up an slam it shut yourself? It's unfortunate indeed.
And Emmitt Till's mother was never ever sure about even the FEDERAL level being on her side. The jews in the concentration camps were absolutely 100% certain that their FEDERAL level was failing them.
It's all about ending vicious bullshit by those in power.
It's all about backup.
I mean, consider how many times victims had to resort to getting the perpetrator convicted on violating their Civil Rights when the other statutes on the books were being ignored!
Now, for the reality...the Feds wont do it either unless they have to. No one of these authoritative bodies will ever do anything that doesnt further their own interests unless they have to. And, believe me, their interests right now certainly do not include Truth, Justice and the American Way.
So - on a certain level I can go along with the idea that this is one more Big Brother step, since any time we give Them a law, they can abuse it. But I also have to believe that, underneath all the crunching juggernaut machinery of this country, there are still enough numbers of good people to eventually win out. If there arent, then maybe it is time to move to Canada. Stamping out localized bigotries will go towards getting more numbers on the good side.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 9:01 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 277 of 376 (540183)
12-22-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Nuggin
12-22-2009 2:49 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Legend writes:
That's right, that element is the punishment of the thought process that led to the crime being committed. A.k.a The Motive.
Nuggin writes:
And we do that in cases of caused death. We have multiple classifications from no-motive manslaughter to 1st degree murder with special circumstances.
This legislation makes it so that we don't have to create 5 different levels of graffiti and 5 different levels of assault and 5 different levels of harassment and 5 different levels of arson, etc etc etc
I'm afraid I'm not following. What's your point?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 2:49 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 4:00 PM Legend has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 278 of 376 (540185)
12-22-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Legend
12-22-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
My point is that someone who commits an arson out of pyromania serves (arbitrary number) 10 years.
Someone who commits an arson for insurance fraud serves 10 years.
Someone who commits arson out of anger at their neighbor, 10 years.
Someone who systematically targets black people with the intention of ridding the state of them 10 years.
If we want to make it so that different kinds of arson carry different penalties, then we can change the laws so that Fraud Arson is Arson A, Insane Arson is Arson B, Anger Arson is Arson C and Racist Arson is Arson C.
We have to add EACH of these new statutes and define them.
And we have to do that for EACH other kind of crime as well.
OR, we can add an additional law saying that certain kinds of crime (be they arson or some other crime) carry an additional penalty when the person committing the crime is targeting a specific group.
I'd rather have a single blanket law than 40,000 sub-laws trying to accomplish the same thing.
You disagree.
You live in England therefore you have a different legal system. Obviously we're going to disagree on what works best for our legal systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 3:53 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 7:15 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 279 of 376 (540227)
12-22-2009 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Nuggin
12-22-2009 4:00 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Nugging writes:
OR, we can add an additional law saying that certain kinds of crime (be they arson or some other crime) carry an additional penalty when the person committing the crime is targeting a specific group.
Why? Is the additional penalty going to deter potential perpetrators? Will the victims feel better knowing that their attacker got more time because they were X/Y/Z ?
How is that group or anyone else going to benefit from additional penalties?
How are the victims who were attacked but weren't X/Y/Z going to feel?
How is the law going to determine that the attacker is targeting a specific group? Just because somoeone hates group X, doesn't mean that he's targeting the whole group when he attacks a member of X. Unless of course you assume he does based on the attackers beliefs.
I don't think you've thought of the full implications of what you're supporting.
Nugging writes:
I'd rather have a single blanket law than 40,000 sub-laws trying to accomplish the same thing.
You disagree. You live in England therefore you have a different legal system. Obviously we're going to disagree on what works best for our legal systems.
It's not a matter of different legal systems, it's a matter of fundamental liberties and freedom from oppression. If you start punishing people for their beliefs and opinions, you can no longer claim to live in a free country.
BTW, I live in Wales not England.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 4:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 2:25 AM Legend has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 376 (540237)
12-22-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Straggler
12-22-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
So the "intent to defraud" that is specified in the law is actually "motive"? Not "intent"? Have you lost the ability to read?
What law are you referring to? I read what you've written and what you are describing is motive. I've already provided sources showing the difference between motive and intent. So what precisely am I supposed to be reading?
Are all laws with a significant intent component "thought crimes" where intent actually means motive? Or just the ones you don't like?
Just the one's that punish people for things that are not crimes.
Hyro do you think one race (for example) is any more protected by the law than any other?
No, it is placing a higher emphasis on race over other equally bad things. In essence it is worse to kill someone over race versus killing them to rob them.
the evidenced intent to effect intimidation beyond the immediate victim. This could apply to anyone of any race, any religion etc. etc. etc.
That could go for anything, Straggler. If a man is targeting women should killing women then be a worse crime versus targeting men? I mean the law is nonsensical.
And (in answer to your silly example) unless targeting technology workers becomes a widespread social phenomenon evidenced through history as a significant problem to society rather than a one off thing - Then no we probably don't need to add the level of technology in ones job to the "protected class" list.
So it has to be a social phenomenon to have a special crime. Just use logic and this should all make perfect sense. Or is it that you do understand but are too invested to renege? Follow the train of thought:
It is already a crime hurt, maim, injure, kill anyone unjustifiably.
You say, oh but it makes those members fearful. Well, serial killers who target young women make women fearful. But we don't invent new laws to protect women from serial killers because they're already legally protected from it.
What this then does is simply devalue one life, who seemingly was murdered without cause, versus a murder that was racially motivated.
On some level this has to be sinking in, you're not an idiot.
Which races do you think have been specified as being better protected by the law over any other? Be specific.
It's not specific races, it is that race itself is being used to magnify an already heinous crime.
Just tell me this much. Suppose your aunt one night is shot in a convenience store. They catch the assailant and he's brought to trial. Before his trial there is another hearing for another murder. This one is for a man who shot and killed a latino woman for what appears to be racial reasons.
The killer gets life in prison, no chance of parole. Then your aunt's killer stands before the judge. She was deemed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her killer gets 10 years, with a chance for parole every 2 years with good behavior.
Was justice for your aunt served?
Why not then make all murder sentencing more strict? Wouldn't that be the simplest way, instead of not equally protecting every one?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2009 12:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2009 2:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 284 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2009 2:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 281 of 376 (540259)
12-23-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Legend
12-22-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
So according to you "intent to defraud" as used legally actually means motive? Not intent? And is thus, by your definition, constitutes a "thought crime"?
So all crimes where there is "intent to defraud" are thought crimes. Yes?
Leg writes:
Which of the above are you having difficulty with?
The part where you changed "arson with intent to defraud" to "arson" that has the motive to defraud.
So tell me which words actually used in the law really have the meaning required to be "thought crimes"? I would love to hear your translation of the laws as you see them. It should be fun.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 1:39 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Legend, posted 12-23-2009 8:27 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 282 of 376 (540261)
12-23-2009 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2009 8:54 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
So what precisely am I supposed to be reading?
The parts where the laws use the word "intent" and not "motive".
Straggler writes:
Are all laws with a significant intent component "thought crimes" where intent actually means motive? Or just the ones you don't like?
Just the one's that punish people for things that are not crimes.
That is a non-answer. Either intent is a thought crime or it isn't. Which is it? And are you applying your thinking on intent based crimes consistently? Or are only those laws you don't like "thought crimes"?
No, it is placing a higher emphasis on race over other equally bad things. In essence it is worse to kill someone over race versus killing them to rob them.
Then you are missing the entire point. If I go and and paint the word "DIE" in pigs blood all over a Synagogue based in the heart of the local Jewish community this is blatantly not same as graffitiing "Fuzzy Rabbit" on the side of a random derelict house. But you want the law to treat them identically in terms of intended effect. I think this would be negligent.
Why not then make all murder sentencing more strict?
Once you get people willing to murder on the basis of prejudice or otherwise you are probably beyond any deterring effect of harsher punishment anyway. I am talking about lesser crimes designed to intimidate and subjugate localised sub-communities. Your morbid fascination with seriel killers and the like are not overly relevant to what we are talking about here.
Wouldn't that be the simplest way, instead of not equally protecting every one?
How are we not equally protecting everyone? Once again I want to know which races or religions you think are better protected by law over any other? Please answer this question or stop implying that this is the case without stating it explicitly.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 8:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 7:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 283 of 376 (540262)
12-23-2009 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Legend
12-22-2009 7:15 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Is the additional penalty going to deter potential perpetrators? Will the victims feel better knowing that their attacker got more time because they were X/Y/Z ?
How is that group or anyone else going to benefit from additional penalties?
Now you are being dishonest. You are trying to change this conversation from hate crime legislation to "Why should we bother punishing anyone at all?"
If you disagree with the legal system in which criminals are punished for their crimes, please just leave the forum. There's no way to carry on a rational discussion with you.
We live in a society in which we have laws and punishments for breaking those laws. End of story.
How is the law going to determine that the attacker is targeting a specific group? Just because somoeone hates group X, doesn't mean that he's targeting the whole group when he attacks a member of X.
How is the law going to determine if a man killed his wife? Just because he murdered a woman who he happened to be married to, doesn't mean that he's specifically targeting his own wife.
These arguments are getting childish. If you want to have a SERIOUS discussion, fine. But if you're going to start pulling out creationist type crap, I'll just skip over your posts.
OBVIOUSLY in order to charge someone for a crime you would have to present evidence. If a KKK member burns down a black man's house with whom he has no connect, and he stands no chance of gaining financially from the act, what is his motive? You want us to conclude that he RANDOMLY picked that house and the fact that he's a member of a group which specifically takes these sort of actions against this particular group should be over looked?
It's not a matter of different legal systems, it's a matter of fundamental liberties and freedom from oppression. If you start punishing people for their beliefs and opinions, you can no longer claim to live in a free country.
Who said anything about punishing people for their beliefs. NO WHERE in ANY of this legislation can ANYONE be charged IN ANY WAY for the crime of "believing" something.
In EVERY SINGLE CASE the person who is being charged MUST take SOME action which is deemed to violate the law.
I'm sorry that you feel that you are a member of a group which is being hurt because you dislike minorities. You are FREE to continue to dislike minorities. However, if you continue to break the law to harass, assault, murder, etc a minority group which has been the subject of systematic harassment in the past, you are going to be subject to steep penalties.
I suggest you stop breaking the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Legend, posted 12-22-2009 7:15 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Legend, posted 12-23-2009 8:45 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 284 of 376 (540263)
12-23-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2009 8:54 PM


Re: Motive Schmotive
No, it is placing a higher emphasis on race over other equally bad things. In essence it is worse to kill someone over race versus killing them to rob them.
That's because it is.
That could go for anything, Straggler. If a man is targeting women should killing women then be a worse crime versus targeting men? I mean the law is nonsensical.
If women are deemed to be a class of people which have faced ongoing systematic descrimination under the legal system then yes it is a worse crime.
The current system is justice for white victims, not for black. You want to keep the current system because you don't have a problem with that balance.
This law intends to level the scales.
I'm sorry that seeing groups get equal justice offends your sense of status, but that's what is going to happen.
So it has to be a social phenomenon to have a special crime.
Yes, if over the next 50 years "pasta cooks" suddenly become the subject of random acts of violence and frequently see the criminals walk with a pat on the back from cops, then "pasta cooks" will become a special class of people until such time as the numbers come back in line with average random violence.
It is already a crime hurt, maim, injure, kill anyone unjustifiably.
And those crimes AREN'T being prosecuted at the same rate or to the same extent as crimes which target the groups in power.
You have YET to offer a BETTER solution than the one proposed. You are just trying to oppose the ONLY solution on the table because you happen to be a group which is in power and feel it is "unfair" to your group that some other group will get equal treatment.
Just tell me this much. Suppose your aunt one night is shot in a convenience store. They catch the assailant and he's brought to trial. Before his trial there is another hearing for another murder. This one is for a man who shot and killed a latino woman for what appears to be racial reasons.
The killer gets life in prison, no chance of parole. Then your aunt's killer stands before the judge. She was deemed as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her killer gets 10 years, with a chance for parole every 2 years with good behavior.
Was justice for your aunt served?
Why not then make all murder sentencing more strict? Wouldn't that be the simplest way, instead of not equally protecting every one?
Why not say, "your aunts murderer is given $50 and a candy bar"? After all you are making up a silly scenario, why not just take it all the way instead of 75%.
The legal system is complicated. You want to pretend it is not.
You can pretend whatever you like. It's not going to change reality.
The fact is that certain groups DO NOT GET JUSTICE while other groups do. Until you can propose a BETTER system which will work in the REAL world, then we're gonna go with what we've got.
I'd advice you to stop committing hate crimes if you think the penalties are unfair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2009 8:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2009 7:41 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 285 of 376 (540273)
12-23-2009 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Straggler
12-23-2009 2:00 AM


Re: Motive Schmotive
Straggler writes:
So according to you "intent to defraud" as used legally actually means motive?
It is the Motive of the Arson act, yes. The Intent is already implied in the Act, otherwise it wouldn't be arson but rather "negligent damage" or something. Arson implies malicious aforethought, i.e. Intent. The Motive for the arson could be one of many things, in this instance it's intent to defraud.
Straggler writes:
And is thus, by your definition, constitutes a "thought crime"?
I'd say it's borderline, as there's no recognised belief or ideology based on defrauding, as far as I know. Therefore the intent to defraud cannot be assumed based on the perpetrator's beliefs but has to be evidenced based on specific actions, for a change.
To show Intent in the legal sense of the word you have to show that the accused *intended to perform the act in question*. If the accused intended to gain something by performing this act then this is called Motive in legal terms. You're seeing the verb "intends to" and you're thinking of the legal term "Intent", although the "intends to" doesn't refer to the Act in question. You're getting hung-up on words instead of meaning.
Legend writes:
Which of the above are you having difficulty with?
Straggler writes:
The part where you changed "arson with intent to defraud" to "arson" that has the motive to defraud.
You mean the part where I explained the legal meaning of the terms used in that sentence.
Once again: Intent is the presence of aforethought or design to commit the act in question. If the Act is setting fire to a house, the presence of Intent makes it Arson. The Motive for the Arson is the desire to defraud.
How many times do we have to go through this?
Now tell me:
quote:
He killed wis wife because he wanted to cash in on the life insurance
What is the Act, the Intent and the Motive here?
quote:
He killed wis wife as he intended to cash in on the life insurance
What is the Act, the Intent and the Motive here?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2009 2:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2009 10:43 AM Legend has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024